United States v. Brett Locklear

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2024
• Docket: 23-4245
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4245 Doc: 46 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4245

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRETT ANDREW LOCKLEAR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00042-D-1)

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 3, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Elisa Cyre Salmon, SALMON LAW FIRM, LLP, Lillington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4245 Doc: 46 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Brett Locklear pleaded guilty to five counts of distribution of child pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b), and one count of possession of child

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). The district court

denied Locklear’s motion for a variance and sentenced him near the bottom of his advisory

Sentencing Guidelines range to 156 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Locklear

contends that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because it

failed to address his nonfrivolous mitigation arguments related to his mental health and

properly explain its rejection of his motion for a variance. We affirm.

We “‘review[] all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside

the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” United States v.

Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 41 (2007)). In evaluating the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, we must

consider whether the district court adequately explained its chosen sentence. United

States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 518 (4th Cir. 2017). While every sentence requires an

adequate explanation, in a routine case “where the district court imposes a

within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy.” United

States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 174-75 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Where the defendant or prosecutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a

different sentence than that set forth in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge should

address the party’s arguments and explain why he has rejected those arguments.” United

States v. Bollinger, 798 F.3d 201, 220 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4245 Doc: 46 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

“The explanation is sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the defendant’s

particular history and characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but as part of

its analysis of the statutory factors and in response to defense counsel’s arguments.”

United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

omitted). A district court need not spell out its responses to a defendant’s arguments where

the context makes the court’s reasoning clear. Blue, 877 F.3d at 520-21. “[I]t is also well

established that our review of a district court’s sentencing explanation is not limited to the

court’s statements at the moment it imposes sentence,” but rather, “we look at the full

context” of those statements when evaluation them. United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204,

213 (4th Cir. 2020). “Where a sentencing court hears a defendant’s arguments and engages

with them at a hearing, we may infer from that discussion that specific attention has been

given to those arguments.” Id.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The record demonstrates

that the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, gave the parties an

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors and Locklear’s nonfrivolous arguments for a downward variance, and adequately

explained the chosen sentence. The court considered the individual facts of Locklear’s

case and determined that his conduct was particularly serious given the number of files

recovered and the incredibly vulnerable nature of his victims. The court also explicitly

rejected Locklear’s arguments in support of a variant sentence based on his mental health,

noting that Locklear’s behavior was so egregious because he had been seeing a therapist

before committing the present offenses, but chose to hide such thoughts and engage in

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4245 Doc: 46 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

criminal behavior despite that assistance. The district court sufficiently explained its

rejection of Locklear’s request for a variance and its reasons for sentencing him to the

lower end of his Guidelines range.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED